Linux Mint and GPL license Violation

Chat about anything related to Linux Mint
Forum rules
Do not post support questions here. Before you post read the forum rules. Topics in this forum are automatically closed 6 months after creation.
tenshu
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:00 pm

Linux Mint and GPL license Violation

Post by tenshu »

I'm quite surprised to see that this distro is existing.

I know you are making some work to release an accessible OS for end users.
That is not the point of my speech.

You must not ignore the fact that Linux and most of it's softwares are under the GPL licence.

The GPL doesn't allow redistributing free softwares under GPL with proprietary binaries.

Linux mint is exactly in the same position than Koroaa was.
Read more about it here : http://kororaa.org/static.php?page=gpl

I hope you will understand that there are some rules that make the free softwares adventure possible.
Hate it or love it, rules are the rules ...

Tenshu
User avatar
clem
Level 12
Level 12
Posts: 4303
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:34 am
Contact:

Post by clem »

Hi,

It's a fair point and I'm sure people will talk about that more and more as Linux Mint gets more popular.

This grey area needs to be defined and looked at. If you see any precise problems with Linux Mint in particular please tell us and we'll take necessary actions.

If these drivers are indeed in violation with the GPL because they're built against the kernel source code and don't share their own source code, then we will not include them in our distribution.

As for other proprietary components, I don't see anything wrong with them...
anselm
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:24 am

Post by anselm »

F.U.D Other distros are doing the samething as Linux Mint
str8jacket

GPL

Post by str8jacket »

Yes, there may very well be "GPL" violations here, But lets think a bit beyond that, Perhaps there are some other violations as well, So GPL violations...whoopee doo-dee. I didn't come here looking for Stallman's grand dream, I came here looking for my wet dream, which has been met. I have spent so much time trying to get windows users to just "try" linux, and thanks to the dredge of "GPL" official codecs and garbage people boot it up, see that it is half the man that proprietary systems are, and never look again. Maybe consider this a "Glimpse" distro that offers us a "what if" in the linux world. GPL can burn. It's holding us back. Str8
User avatar
clem
Level 12
Level 12
Posts: 4303
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:34 am
Contact:

Post by clem »

We owe a lot to the GPL and we have to acknowledge that, to Richard Stallman as well as a matter of fact. Linux Mint is a GNU/Linux distribution, 95% of it is GPLed. This doesn't mean we can't include proprietary software into it, but it is clear to me that if some software are violating the GPL licence, whether it's legal or not, whether there's been a law suit or not, they will not be included in Linux Mint.

Software patents are one thing, the GPL is another. We won't promote GPL violations. We're looking into the ATI, NVidia matter at the moment to see if we can include these drivers in Bea or in the release after that, but there's a big chance that, because of eventual GPL violations, they will not be included at all.
anselm
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:24 am

Post by anselm »

Hi root,

I have been reading over at the Ubuntu forums about Linux Mint.

Here is a link that might answer most of your questions,

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread. ... =linuxmint

There are also other links with in this thread also, have'nt been able to read those yet.
tenshu
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:00 pm

Post by tenshu »

please this isn't a topic created to make some flamming or trolling conspiracy.

My point of view is that including binary softwares, especially binary kernel module is a GPL violation.
But yes i'm not an GPL specialist.
And no i have nothing to do with the FSF (but at least please try to consider what they had done for us).

What you call "grey area" in the GPL can let you (or not) release Linux Mint but think about it with the ethical perspective!
Shouldn't we just encourage the hard work of our community to get free drivers?
Shouldn't we encourage the usage a free codecs?
Shouldn't we encourage companies to release free drivers?
The answer is yes and you know it.

Hiding behind those "grey areas" isn't fair, you could let user choice for free or binary softwares/codecs/divers and bu this way comply with the GPL.

The original Ubuntu approach is the right way between end users needs and ethical respect.

Note that i didn't mentioned that you could take this probleme with an other approach: GPL doesn't allow you to mix GPL and Binaries from non-oss, so Linux Mint should not exist.

GPL and other open license had built linux don't forget where all of these come from ...
User avatar
clem
Level 12
Level 12
Posts: 4303
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:34 am
Contact:

Post by clem »

I think you're mixing two different things here... the GPL doesn't say anything about including proprietary software on the CD... As for the ATI and NVidia drivers, they are not included in Linux Mint 2.0...

Of course we should prefer open source over proprietary, and of course we should encourage people to use and do open source, but that doesn't mean we have to be blind, and restrict ourselves to free software.

Proprietary software is not evil or bad, it simply doesn't give as much freedom as free software, but that doesn't mean we should not, in any circumstances decide to use it.

So no Linux Mint does not violate the GPL.
No, we are not unethical.
Yes, we do care.
And just to remind everybody, the GPL is the mean, not the purpose. And the original mean of free software is simply for people to share, use freely and benefit from one another's modifications...

I understand your concern, and I understand your point of view. Freedom is important, and I too dream often of a World without intellectual property. It is important though to be practical and not to become blinded by our ideals.

When I go to work, I take my car. I believe in ecology and nature... but I'm not going to walk 60 miles a day. Of course, I could move house or change job... but I haven't done so yet.

When I browse the Internet, I'm glad to have Flash installed. I believe in open standards... but I'm not going to boycott 25% of the Internet I like just because I deeply wish Flash was better than it already is (by being free).

Software is good, Free Software is better. That's how I see it.
anselm
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:24 am

Post by anselm »

2nd amen :D
tenshu
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 1:00 pm

Post by tenshu »

Respecting the law isn't a choice it is a duty

Respecting the GPL isn't an option, it is not something to "restrict ourselves to free software"

I were comprehensive in my last posts, but now i'm sure Linux Mint is an Ubuntu including GPL infringements.
Your approach is a menace for Free Software future, if open source community start to violate the GPL i don't want to imagine what Microsoft will do ...

Tell it to your friends there is nothing an Linux mint could do that an Edgy Eft can do.
Ubuntu is a community driven project to create an operating system and a full set of applications using free and open source software. At the core of the Ubuntu Philosophy of Software Freedom are these core philosophical ideals:

1.

Every computer user should have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, share, change and improve their software for any purpose, without paying licensing fees.
2.

Every computer user should be able to use their software in the language of their choice.
3.

Every computer user should be given every opportunity to use software, even if they work under a disability.

Our philosophy is reflected in the software we produce and include in our distribution. As a result, the licensing terms of the software we distribute are measured against our philosophy, using the Ubuntu Licence Policy.

When you install Ubuntu almost all of the software installed already meets these ideals, and we are working to ensure that every single piece of software you need is available under a licence that gives you those freedoms. Currently, we make a specific exception for some "drivers" which are only available in binary form, without which many computers will not complete the Ubuntu installation. We place these in a restricted section of your system which makes them trivial to remove if you do not need them.
My conclusion you just use our work on ubuntu to violate our philosophy
Yes this is a kind of boycot.
User avatar
clem
Level 12
Level 12
Posts: 4303
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:34 am
Contact:

Post by clem »

Hi Tenshu,

I don't really understand how Linux Mint violates the GPL. Can you be more precise and tell us which GPL infringements are included in our distribution ?

Can you ?
helios
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:28 pm

Abrupt to the point of whiplash...Barristers flock to scene.

Post by helios »

Well that conversation ended quickly. So quickly in fact, that I believe I see rubber left from the abrupt skid marks of harsh braking. Either facts are being examined and gathered for presentation or our friend decided the payoff would not be worth the effort. You can bet there will be fingers pointing your way with snitching sounds aplenty.

Good work fellas. My name is Ken Starks aka helios (blog.lobby4linux.com)
As many read my blog and have visited our website, it is known that i am a Manic advocate of PCLinuxOS. However, the DevTeam, and they are a SUPERB DevTeam, have stood firm on PCLOS being a KDE-Centric distro. There have been occasional attempts to "Gnome-ize" PCLOS, but the projects have disappeared into the fog, never to emerge. Emerge...Wait, that's Gentoo.

Sorry, lousy pun. One must have a legacy of some sort I suppose.

This distro is top notch and I am installing it tonight. It will be my prime mover for a 30 day period. I have had several affairs with Gnome and as of yet, she has been good to me, gives me things I want, and hasn't made a trip to the local Medical Clinic necessary as of yet. I specifically want to be able to include certain kde libs in my Gnome environment so as to utilize a few kde tools. One such tool is known as KPF or public file server. I do not know if it possible to run this simple little file sharing server in Gnome, but it is a wonderful tool and one I will need to use.

As well, I am more than disappointed in the kde desktop search functions and kick it to the curb with every new install. I much prefer the gnome search tool and in conjunction, Beagle. This is a wonderful program and it is a shame the developers of KAT gave up on the kde project that would have been Beagle's equal.

Anyway, again I offer my sincere thanks for your work on this distro, and trust me...I find absolutely no problems with "Dirty" sheep amonst the "Clean".

Your analogy about driving your car to work was spot on, and extremely hard to argue with. FOSS extremists find it difficult to counter. :wink:

See ya around.

h
Helmut
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:33 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Helmut »

I am very concious about what the Free Software Foundation and Richard Stallman did for us, and we should all be very grateful to the very core of our bare bones!
Without the FSF we may still be with UNIX and having to pay licence fees. Linus would not have written any code, and we would not have Linux today.

On the other hand, although I generally dislike proprietary software I do like to have the one or other proprietary feature even if I don't really need it. As long as we don't mingle it with free stuff and redistribute it, we should be OK. Anyhow, if we use both free and proprietary stuff together, we should be very concious and knowledgable about what we are doing! BB is watching us!

So, if this is legel - fantastic!
In the long rung it will help Linux propagation, and isn't that what we all want?

Cheers,
Helmut
adewolf
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:04 pm

Post by adewolf »

I would gladly stop using the closed source nvidia drivers, if the free drivers would work with open GL properly. The open source nv driver has no hardware acceleration for cards like NV Go 7700 or 7900.
anselm
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:24 am

Post by anselm »

Everyone I know installs these drivers, you need them to enjoy using linux and the internet.

So i don't see why this argument always comes up when distros do it for there users. :roll:
Helmut
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:33 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Helmut »

Quote:

In the long rung it will help Linux propagation, and isn't that what we all want?

Helmut
User avatar
Fragadelic
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Fragadelic »

Raven-sb wrote:Hi,

I registered to respond to this topic because it's sometime I feel strongly about. This post is not intended to be a flame so please forgive me if it comes across as one.

I find it extremely ironic that free software zealots have no problems with installing propriety drivers themselves but they do have a problem with distributions including those drivers to make life easier for their users.

I also find it ironic that one of the most talked about open source technologies today is the 3D desktop, however in order to use that desktop closed source drivers must be installed.

It is also interesting (as noted by Distrowatch here http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20060515#news ) that these FSF zealots go after the little guy on the block (like Kororaa or Linux Mint) and completely ignore the big corporation distributions who include these drivers such as Linspire/Freespire, Mephis, Mandriva, or Xandros.

I have every respect for RMS , the FSF, and the GPL. However there are a lot of contributors who made Linux what it is today, and not all of them agree with RMS. To those who don't want to run a system with some closed source drivers enabled, I say use a Linux distribution that doesn't include them.
You hit the nail square on the head!

It would be even better if they went after those guys since they actually have money but the problem is that they also have lawyers and legal battles cost money.

Unfortunately the Linux community is full of hypocrites.

I fail to see how closed source free drivers are worse than open source reverse engineering.

It isn't ok to provide closed source free stuff but you are free to provide reverse engineered solutions like samba,ntfs,etc.

Mint doesn't include the 3D drivers from ATI or nvidia yet anyway but I guess the codecs are enough to bunch up the panties.

The way I look at it is that I have the right to use it since I paid for the content. What good is the content if there is no way to use it.
User avatar
clem
Level 12
Level 12
Posts: 4303
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:34 am
Contact:

Post by clem »

I fail to see how closed source free drivers are worse than open source reverse engineering.
Well, I have to disagree with that. Linux is GPLed and open-source. Through the GPL the developers distribute their work and contribute greatly to the World with something that is not only free, but modifiable and redistributable. So when a company violates that GPL by modifying the code, and redistributing something I can't modify... even though the developers of the kernel took assurance that I should be able to.. I have to say no. I don't care if it's free of cost.. it's not nice morally.

Now reverse engineering is different. Somebody got a great idea, and instead of contributing it to the World, he sold it and made sure nobody could do it again (through patents or proprietary licences, or just through non distribution of source code). So when somebody else manages to exploit the same idea, and free its use for everybody else by reverse enginering it, I say yes. I don't care who got the idea first.
The way I look at it is that I have the right to use it since I paid for the content.
The way I look at it, if something became a standard and not only does everybody use it, but everybody "needs it": de facto, it belongs to the World. It becomes public domain. If it's not free of cost people pirate it (Windows users mostly), if it's patented people disregard the patents, if it's closed people reverse-engineer it. Personally I don't care if it's patented, restricted, or who it belongs to. If it is a standard and if people got vendor-locked by it, I don't consider it to belong to its inventor but to the people themselves. For this reason I have little or no respect for the licences of these software. I am grateful to the companies who made them, but the day they made everybody need them, they can't legitimately put conditions on these people's usage of their software.

For these reason Linux Mint violates a lot of patents and licences (although this is only true in some countries), but it does not violate the GPL and is careful not to do so. You see, it's not about some law, it's about what we think is right.

Clem
Last edited by clem on Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Fragadelic
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Fragadelic »

With respect to closed source free I meant the ati and nvidia drivers.

That is their IP and their technology.

I wasn't referring to stealing gpl software and closing it.
User avatar
clem
Level 12
Level 12
Posts: 4303
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:34 am
Contact:

Post by clem »

I understand what you meant Tony and I'm not arguing it. But you compared GPL violations to reverse-engineering, and while they're both against US law (as I understand it) I find one unacceptable and have no problem with the other.. so I just wanted to react on that.

The mentioned drivers do need to be linked to the kernel in order to work. So , whoever it is that links them, they need someone to break the GPL in order to work. That's why I have a problem with them.

On the other hand, they are de facto a standard in personal computing, and people do need them. So I understand the fact that no licence should be in the way of making users able to use their hardware.

It's a very debatable question, and as I said before I have mixed feelings about it. In the end I want to help users using what they need, no matter what license, but I also want to respect the GPL because it's an ideal and a beautiful thing that ought to be respected. Nvidia and ATI are to blame... the kernel developers have a point, but the users do as well... so the question is still open.

In Bea envy was added. I know it doesn't violate the GPL but it makes it easier for the user to do so. I suppose this is the best compromise we can achieve on this... but again, I don't really know what to think of it.

Anyway.. I'm talking too much and not focusing on what's important here: among all the licenses and regional laws that we can disregard and ignore in the name of our alienable rights to use our computers the way we should be able to, the one license that definitely still has importance and ought to be respected is the GPL. Don't mind the reverse engineering :)

That's what I wanted to say. :)

Clem
I definitely need a drink now :)
Locked

Return to “Chat about Linux Mint”